At 00:23 17/06/2006, you wrote:
>I wonder if we might have some expansion of that last sentence?
>
>STAN
>
>
> >Dear Hans and colleagues,
> >
> >Thank you for the seminal insights. In my view, genuine informational
> >entities (living beings, nervous systems, social entities,
enterprises, the
> >observing scientist, etc.) are involved in germane problems on how to
> >optimize their very limited resources concerning an open-ended realm
of
> >interactions... "limited information" appears as an
overarching notion
> >concerning both the animate and the inanimate. It may recapitulate in
bits
> >the mechanical principle of "minimal action" in nature's
evolution.
Thanks, Stan. One possible way to expand that last sentence about the
whimsicalities of nature's course, could be the discussion of sort of a
"principle of minimal informational description."
A metaphor of the above could be put if we go around a very dear statement
of yours: "nature abhors a gradient" (which I share, though not quite
globally). Under the above informational vision it could be: "nature abhors
a distinction". It would cover then directly the gradient case, but also
the atomic bonding events, as if we go to Gibb's expression of free energy
in chemical making & braking of bonds, the enthalpy term would imply the
"thriftiness" of nature concerning the diminished distinctions it has to
make regarding the now more symmetrical bonded electronic shells. Now we
could glimpse getting along the relatively well-trodden paths of molecular
information via the underlying conception of information "distinction on
the adjacent". Jim Jhonson made weeks ago a short reference to Michael
Leyton's approach to information via group theory. It may strongly relate
to these speculations... Sorry that his comment is too encapsulated yet.
best regards
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Jun 21 14:00:36 2006
